¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

THE fall of Sheikh Hasina’s long-serving government in 2024 sparked a wave of optimism among journalists, civil society actors, and the wider public who had long been stifled by shrinking civic space. Many saw the transition as a historic opening for renewed press freedom, democratic accountability, and relief from decades of legal harassment under restrictive laws such as the Digital Security Act 2018. International observers, too, anticipated a democratic reset where independent journalism could once again act as the ‘fourth estate’.

Bangladesh’s interim period has brought many commissions, committees and consultations. Few, however, carry as much weight for the country’s democratic future as the Media Reform Commission. Yet, one year on, optimism has dimmed. While the interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus has introduced symbolic gestures toward reform, fundamental challenges remain in ensuring a safe, sustainable, and pluralistic media environment. Legal ambiguities, concentrated ownership, weak labour protections, and a fragile digital information sphere continue to threaten the independence of journalism, raising doubts about whether political change alone can guarantee structural transformation.

It is in this context that the Media Reform Commission has assumed critical importance. Its mandate goes far beyond resolving newsroom grievances; it is about reshaping the very architecture of trust, accountability, and pluralism in Bangladesh’s media landscape. By calling for deconcentrated ownership, modernised regulation, stronger labour and safety standards, transparent practices, and protections against digital manipulation, the Commission has set out a roadmap. Whether these recommendations are embraced — or ignored — will determine if the promise of a freer press can finally take root, or if the cycle of fragility will persist.

Ìý

The Commission’s north star: independence, resilience, pluralism

ACROSS its proposals, the Commission pursues three interlocking goals. Independence means protection from political capture and undue commercial pressure; resilience means financial, physical and technological capacity to withstand shocks; pluralism means diversity of voices across ownership, geography, language, gender and format. No single reform can deliver all three; the Commission therefore advances a package that only works if its parts move together. It is best understood as an ecosystem fix: governance rules, market rules, labour rights, and audience trust must all be addressed at once.

The Media Reform Commission has put forward a comprehensive set of proposals to strengthen press freedom, restore accountability, and build a resilient and pluralistic media ecosystem. The first step is deconcentrating media ownership and improving transparency. By curbing excessive cross-ownership, mandating disclosure of beneficial owners, and requiring large companies to meet listing standards, the Commission seeks to reduce political and corporate capture, creating space for diversity in voices and content.

Second, the Commission urges modernising media law. Overbroad restrictions on speech must be replaced with rights-based frameworks, protecting journalistic newsgathering and public-interest reporting. This includes decriminalising defamation, refining the right to information regime, and ensuring judicial oversight of state powers to prevent abuse. Clearer laws would reduce ambiguity, which is often weaponised to induce self-censorship.

Third, the Commission calls for building an independent regulator alongside a self-regulatory ethics system. A statutory regulator with clearly defined powers would oversee transparency, competition, and distribution of state advertising, while an independent Media Ethics Council would mediate complaints, set professional standards, and guide ethical journalism. Together, these mechanisms would balance fairness with accountability.

Fourth, economic fairness is emphasised through transparent state advertising, competitive funding, and rational tax treatment. By publishing allocation criteria, prohibiting punitive blacklisting, and supporting circulation audits, the Commission aims to make the market contestable. For smaller and rural outlets, access to independent public-interest funds would ensure survival and sustainability.

The Commission also stresses journalist safety, labour rights, and professional dignity. Proposals include a national safety mechanism, minimum wages, contracts, and impartial accreditation, along with workplace protections and safety training. Journalism should not come at the cost of physical security or economic precarity.

Digital challenges are addressed through tackling disinformation and boosting audience resilience. Recommendations involve supporting fact-checking networks, mandating platform transparency on political ads, strengthening verification capacities in newsrooms, and embedding media literacy into education systems.

Gender equality and inclusion are another cornerstone. Eliminating discriminatory practices, ensuring gender-sensitive assignments, and promoting diversity in leadership and bylines would create more pluralistic coverage and broaden trust in the press.

Lastly, the Commission calls for transforming state broadcasters into independent public service media, sustaining community radio, and investing in capacity and innovation pipelines. These include training programmes, shared technology hubs, investigative labs, and new business models such as memberships and subscriptions. Together, these reforms envision a media system that is independent, resilient, and pluralistic.

Ìý

If recommendations are not implemented

IF THE Commission’s recommendations are ignored or only partially adopted, the costs will be high and immediate. Democratic accountability will erode as investigative journalism dries up under restrictive laws and unfair economics. Corruption, abuse of power, and mismanagement will escape scrutiny, leaving citizens unable to make informed choices and weakening Bangladesh’s democratic transition.

Failure to deconcentrate ownership will lead to entrenched market capture, where a few politically aligned conglomerates dominate content pipelines. Sensitive stories will remain buried, diversity of opinion will shrink, and new entrants — particularly from outside Dhaka — will be crowded out, further centralising media narratives.

The absence of a national safety mechanism and labour protections will drive talent out of journalism. Skilled reporters, faced with threats, harassment, and unpaid wages, will leave for safer and better-paying careers in PR, NGOs, or abroad. This brain drain will hollow out the sector, leaving critical stories underreported.

Without platform transparency, fact-checking networks, or mass media literacy, disinformation and conspiracy theories will outpace credible reporting, especially in regional landscapes. During crises like floods or pandemics, misinformation could undermine public health and disaster responses, with lethal consequences.

Public trust will also collapse further. Audiences, unsure who funds an outlet or whether stories are manipulated, will disengage or turn to unverified sources. Advertisers, wary of declining trust and sensationalism, will withdraw support, creating a vicious cycle of reduced revenues and degraded quality.

Inclusion gaps will widen. Without targeted measures, women, minorities, and rural populations will remain under-represented in media ownership and coverage. This will exacerbate inequality and grievance, leaving significant portions of society feeling voiceless.

Internationally, Bangladesh risks a decline in global standing and investment. Donors, investors, and diaspora communities closely monitor press freedom indices, and further deterioration could deter financial inflows, raise borrowing costs, and strain diplomatic relations tied to governance reforms.

Finally, crisis communication will falter. Without robust public service media and community outlets, verified early warnings and critical information may not reach vulnerable populations during disasters, amplifying loss of life and property.

In short, inaction accelerates decline. It risks turning today’s fragile media environment into one that is captured, hollowed out, distrusted, and incapable of supporting democratic governance or national resilience. The longer reforms are delayed, the steeper — and politically more painful — the path to recovery becomes.

Ìý

What can be done now: a mitigation playbook

THE good news is that not every fix requires a full parliamentary calendar. Many measures can begin today through administrative orders, procurement reforms, memoranda of understanding, or voluntary industry compacts. A practical, sequenced plan blends quick wins with structural moves.

Immediate (0–6 months) plans to stabilise and signal: In the immediate term, the government and stakeholders must focus on stabilising the media environment while signalling a credible commitment to reform. A critical first step is publishing the money trail: an administrative directive should require all ministries and state-owned entities to release monthly dashboards of advertising spend by outlet, along with clear criteria and rates. Transparency in this area alone would deter manipulation and calm fears of reprisal.

At the same time, arbitrary accreditation revocations must be frozen through the adoption of an interim accreditation code with clear criteria, appeal rights, and separation between content and credentials. Pending reviews, wrongfully revoked badges should be reinstated to restore trust and ensure fair access.

Equally urgent is the safety and security of journalists. A dedicated safety helpline and rapid response desk could be hosted within the National Human Rights Commission or a reputable NGO under a formal agreement with police and prosecutors. This should be paired with an emergency small-grants window to support relocation, legal defence, or trauma counselling.

Editors themselves can take the lead by creating a voluntary Editors’ Compact on ethics and corrections, agreeing to standardised corrections boxes, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and source-protection policies. Germany’s Press Council offers a model: it enforces voluntary codes of ethics and issues public reprimands rather than legal penalties, building trust through self-regulation. For Bangladesh, such a compact could lay the groundwork for a future statutory ethics council.

To safeguard the information ecosystem, a fact-checking alliance among leading outlets, universities, and civil society organisations should be formed, while interim memorandums with major platforms can ensure data access for public-interest research and create fast lanes for election-related corrections. India’s BOOM and Indonesia’s Mafindo demonstrate the value of multi-stakeholder fact-checking pools in contexts rife with disinformation.

The government can further reduce operational frictions by temporarily waiving or deferring licensing, transmission, or import fees for essential newsroom equipment while fast-tracking customs for protective gear and technology. Finally, public service content can be piloted by dedicating fixed slots on state broadcasters to independently curated civic information and public-interest journalism, governed by a temporary editorial charter.

Near term (6–18 months) plans to lock in structures: In the near term, it is crucial to lock in structures that will sustain media independence and integrity. This can begin with drafting and consulting on a comprehensive media independence and integrity bill that narrows speech-related offences, decriminalises defamation, codifies public-interest defences, protects source confidentiality, and establishes a statutory regulator with an independent board. South Africa’s ICASA and the UK’s Ofcom offer comparative lessons on how regulators can balance independence with accountability.

Alongside this, a charter-based media ethics council should be established, empowered to issue guidance, mediate complaints, and publish reasoned decisions without imposing fines. The Philippines’ Press Council provides a regional example, where non-binding rulings uphold ethical standards while avoiding censorship. Participation in Bangladesh’s council could be incentivised through reputational benefits and linkage to funding eligibility.

Ownership transparency should be prioritised by mandating disclosure of ultimate beneficial owners for all outlets above a defined size, tying compliance to licence renewal and access to state advertising, and integrating disclosures with company registries to prevent shell structures.

Advertising and audience measurement reforms are equally essential. Independent, audited audience metrics, including regional and digital measures, should be procured to ensure fair allocation of state advertising with results published in quarterly dashboards. Brazil’s adoption of IVC-audited circulation data for advertising allocation offers one model.

The pilot journalist safety helpline should transition into a national safety mechanism with a dedicated budget, liaison points, and clear police engagement protocols, while requiring media houses to adopt safety policies and training as a precondition for public funding. The sector must also adopt inclusion standards that advance gender equality and anti-harassment measures, requiring workforce reporting disaggregated by gender and incentivising compliance through tax credits or grant eligibility.

To strengthen diversity, community and hyperlocal outlets should be supported through small competitive grants managed by independent intermediaries. India’s Community Radio Fund and Nepal’s Rural Media grants provide precedents where small-scale funding has kept rural voices alive. Building a sustainable talent pipeline is equally vital, with investments in newsroom placements, university partnerships, and fellowships for investigative reporting, data journalism, and product development.

Medium term (18–36 months) plans to institutionalise media independence: In the medium term, Bangladesh must anchor lasting mechanisms that institutionalise media independence. A critical step lies in transforming state broadcasters into true public service media. For decades, outlets like Bangladesh Television and Bangladesh Betar have functioned as government mouthpieces, eroding trust. Lessons can be drawn from the BBC, which operates under a Royal Charter guaranteeing editorial independence and securing multi-year funding insulated from political cycles. Similarly, South Africa’s SABC has undergone reforms with an independent board through a transparent process. Bangladesh can adapt these models by introducing a statutory charter, ensuring diverse representation on oversight boards, and mandating regular external audits.

Equally vital are ownership deconcentration and strong antitrust enforcement. At present, media ownership in Bangladesh is highly concentrated, often in the hands of conglomerates with political affiliations. To counter this, legislation should establish strict caps on cross-media holdings and require divestments when thresholds are breached. The European Union’s Media Freedom Act includes provisions to prevent excessive consolidation and ensure pluralism. South Korea’s competition authority is empowered to investigate predatory pricing and covert subsidies that distort fair competition. Bangladesh’s competition authority could be similarly strengthened to dismantle monopolistic practices and curb political patronage.

The rise of artificial intelligence and synthetic media presents another pressing challenge. Around the world, disinformation campaigns increasingly rely on deepfakes and automated content generation. In response, countries such as Canada and Germany now require outlets to disclose the use of AI in content creation and develop editorial safeguards. Bangladesh should follow suit by mandating transparency in AI use and supporting the creation of a national lab for open-source investigations and digital archiving. Such a lab, modelled after investigative collectives like Bellingcat, could help train journalists in verification techniques, build public capacity to combat disinformation, and preserve the integrity of historical records.

To hold the sector accountable, Bangladesh should also commit to publishing an annual State of the Media report. This would benchmark progress on indicators including journalist safety, diversity of voices, ownership transparency, audience trust, and financial sustainability. For Bangladesh, such a scorecard would serve as both a mirror and a roadmap—highlighting achievements, exposing vulnerabilities, and directing resources where they are most needed.

Finally, long-term media viability depends on sustainable financing mechanisms. Traditional advertising revenues are shrinking, while digital advertising is increasingly captured by global platforms. To address this, Bangladesh could establish a Media Sustainability Fund. Norway’s Press Subsidy Scheme supports local and minority-language newspapers through insulated state funding. Colombia has experimented with levies on telecom services to finance independent media initiatives. Bangladesh could adopt a similar approach by channelling modest levies from telecom spectrum auctions and the domestic digital advertising market into an independent fund, matched by contributions from development partners. Crucially, such resources must be routed through independent intermediaries, ensuring support strengthens pluralism without compromising editorial independence.

Ìý

The politics of possibility

SCEPTICS will say the moment is too fragile for ambitious reform. The truth is the reverse: in moments of transition, rules can change before habits harden. The Commission has supplied a map; the question is whether the country will take the road or remain stuck in a traffic circle of piecemeal fixes and quiet decline. The agenda is not anti-government or anti-business; it is pro-public. It seeks a media market where outlets compete on quality rather than proximity to power and a civic arena where truth has a fighting chance.

Implementation will be messy. There will be pushback from incumbents who profit from opacity, from censors who fear criticism, and from those who conflate public interest with partisan interest. That is why sequencing and coalition-building matter. Start with transparency and safety — few can argue against them. Move next to fair economics and self-regulation — good for business and the profession. Then codify independence through law and institutions that outlast the next political cycle.

Bangladesh has never lacked storytellers. What it needs now are rules that let them tell the stories that matter — without fear, without favour, and with the resources to do it well. The Media Reform Commission’s recommendations are not a wish list; they are a work plan. Delay will deepen the costs. Action, even imperfect, will compound benefits: higher trust, safer newsrooms, more diverse voices, and a media sector that helps the country navigate storms rather than be swallowed by them.

The window is open. Let us not mistake the breeze for a guarantee.

Ìý

ÌýMusharraf Tansen is a doctoral researcher at the University of Dhaka.